Pokaż uproszczony rekord

dc.contributor.authorStanek, Piotren
dc.date.accessioned2015-04-28T12:05:14Z
dc.date.available2015-04-28T12:05:14Z
dc.date.issued2013-04-30en
dc.identifier.issn1508-2008
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11089/8341
dc.description.abstractThe article aims at surveying the economic literature related to collective decision making. In order to do so it proposes a coherent framework allowing for a structured analysis of the factors influencing the works of a committee. These factors are divided into external ( shaped outside of the committee e.g. by law) and internal ones (related to the composition of the committee and interactions between its members). The survey of the general economic literature related to collective decision making presented within the proposed framework yields interesting suggestions for further research, including the consequences for the shape of monetary policy committeesen
dc.description.abstractArtykuł ma na celu dokonanie przeglądu literatury ekonomicznej z zakresu kolektywnego podejmowania decyzji. W tym celu zaproponowano ramy pozwalające na ustrukturyzowaną analizę czynników wpływających na pracę organu kolektywnego (rady). Dokonano podziału tych czynników na zewnętrzne (tzn. kształtowane poza samą radą, np. przez wymogi prawne) oraz wewnętrzne (związane ze składem rady oraz interakcjami między jej członkami). Dokonany w ramach zaproponowanej struktury przegląd literatury ogólnoekonomicznej dotyczącej kolektywnego podejmowania decyzji pozwala na zaproponowanie interesujących kierunków dalszych badań, w tym konsekwencji dla kształtu rad polityki pieniężnej.en
dc.publisherWydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiegoen
dc.relation.ispartofseriesComparative Economic Research;16en
dc.rightsThis content is open access.en
dc.titleTheoretical Aspects of Collective Decision Making - Survey of the Economic Literatureen
dc.page.number103-121en
dc.contributor.authorAffiliationCracow University of Economics, Department of International Economicsen
dc.identifier.eissn2082-6737
dc.referencesAusten-Smith D., Banks D. (1996), Information aggregation, rationality and the Condorcet JuryTheorem, ‘American Political Science Review’, vol. 90en
dc.referencesBanzhaf, J.F. (1965), Weighted Voting Doesn't Work: A Mathematical Analysis, ‘Rutgers Law Review’, vol. 19en
dc.referencesBarberà S., Gul F., Stachetti E. (1993), Generalized Median Voter Schemes and Committees, ‘Journal of Economic Theory’, vol. 61, no. 2en
dc.referencesBen-Yashar R.C., Nitzan S.I. (1997), The optimal decision rule for fixed-size committees indichotomous choice situations: the general result, ‘International Economic Review’, vol. 38, no. 1en
dc.referencesBerger H. (2002), The ECB and Euro-Area Enlargement, ‘IMF Working Paper’ no. 02/175en
dc.referencesBerk J.M., Bierut B. (2003), Committee structure and its implications for monetary policydecision-making, ‘MEB Series 2003-5’ De Nederlandsche Banken
dc.referencesBerk J.M., Bierut B. (2009), Communication in a monetary policy committee: a note, ‘DNB Working Papers’ No. 226 ThomsonISI: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=000296267300015&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=b7bc2757938ac7a7a821505f8243d9f3en
dc.referencesBlack D., (1948), On the Rationale of Group Decision-making, ‘Journal of Political Economy’ vol. 56en
dc.referencesBosman R., Maier P., Sadiraj V., van Winden F. (2005), Let Me Vote! An experimental study ofthe effects of vote rotation in committees, ‘Andrew Young School of Policy Studies Working Paper’ no. 06-30en
dc.referencesCaplin, A., Nalebuff, B. (1988), On the 64%-majority rule, ‘Econometrica’, vol. 56en
dc.referencesCasella A., (2001), Market mechanisms for policy decisions: Tools for the European Union, ‘European Economic Review’, vol. 45, no. 4en
dc.referencesCasella A., (2005), Storable votes, ‘Games and Economic Behavior’, vol. 51, iss. 2en
dc.referencesCasella A., Gelman A., Palfrey T.R. (2006), An experimental study of storable votes, ‘Games and Economic Behavior’, vol. 57, iss. 1en
dc.referencesCondorcet M. de (1785), Essai sur l'application de l'analyse à la probabilité des decisions renduesà la pluralité des voix, Paris, L'imprimerie royaleen
dc.referencesCoughlan P. (2000), In Defense of Unanimous Jury Verdicts: Communication, Mistrials, andSincerity, ‘American Political Science Review’, vol. 94en
dc.referencesErlenmaier U., Gersbach H. (2001), Flexible Majority Rules, ‘CESifo Working Paper’ no. 464en
dc.referencesFeddersen T., Pesendorfer W. (1999), Elections, information aggregation, and strategic voting, ‘Proceedings of the. National Academy of Science USA’, vol. 96en
dc.referencesFelsenthal, D. S., Machover M. (1998), The Measurement of Voting Power, Cheltenham, Edward Elgaren
dc.referencesGerling K., Grüner H.P., Kiel A., Schulte E. (2005), Information Acquisition and Decision Makingin Committees: a survey, ‘European Journal of Political Economy’, vol. 21, iss. 3en
dc.referencesHahn V. (2012), On the Optimal Size of a Committee of Experts, ‘Department of Economics Working Paper Series’, No. 2012-24, University of Konstanzen
dc.referencesHoller M., Owen G. (2001), Power Indices and Coalition Formation, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston/Dordrecht/Londonen
dc.referencesKirchgässner G. (2008), Direct democracy: obstacle to reform?, ‘Constitutional Political Economy’, Springer, vol. 19(2)en
dc.referencesKoriyama Y., Szentes B. (2009), A resurrection of the Condorcet Jury Theorem, “Theoretical Economics” vol. 4en
dc.referencesLi H., Rosen S. and Suen W. (2001), Conflicts and Common Interests in Committees, ‘American Economic Review’, vol. 91, no. 5en
dc.referencesMacklem T. (2002), Information and Analysis for Monetary Policy: Coming to a Decision, ‘Bank of Canada Review’, Summer 2002en
dc.referencesMaggi G., Morelli M. (2006), Self enforcing voting in international organizations, ‘American Economic Review’, vol. 96, no. 4en
dc.referencesMaier P., Bezoen S. (2004), Bashing and supporting central banks: the Bundesbank and theEuropean Central Bank, ‘European Journal of Political Economy’, vol. 20en
dc.referencesMarchese C., Montefiori M. (2011), Strategy versus sincerity in mean voting, ‘Journal of Economic Psychology’, Vol. 32, Iss. 1 ThomsonISI: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=000287058600009&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=b7bc2757938ac7a7a821505f8243d9f3en
dc.referencesMéon, P.-G. (2006), Majority voting with stochastic preferences: The whims of a committee aresmaller than the whims of its members, ‘Constitutional political economy’, vol. 17, n°3en
dc.referencesMoulin H. (1988), Axioms of cooperative decision making, Econometric Society Monographs, Cambridge University Pressen
dc.referencesOttaviani M., Sørensen P. (2001), Information aggregation in debate: who should speak first?, ‘Journal of Public Economics’, vol. 81en
dc.referencesPersico N. (2004), Committee Design with Endogenous Information, ‘Review of Economic Studies’, vol. 71, no. 1en
dc.referencesPoole K. T., Daniels R. S. (1985), Ideology, Party and Voting in the US Congress, 1959-1980, ‘American Political Science Review’, vol. 79en
dc.referencesPrimo D. M. (2002), Rethinking Political Bargaining: Policymaking with a Single Proposer, ‘Journal of Law Economics and Organization’, vol. 18, no 2en
dc.referencesSchulte E. (2010), Information Aggregation and Preference Heterogeneity in Committees, Theory and Decision, vol. 69, iss. 1 ThomsonISI: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=000278743400006&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=b7bc2757938ac7a7a821505f8243d9f3en
dc.referencesShapley L.S., (1997), A Value on n-Person Games, [in:] H.W. Kuhn (ed.), Classics in GameTheory, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Pressen
dc.referencesStanek P. (2004), W stronę rozszerzenia Europejskiego Banku Centralnego (For increasing theECB), ‘Gospodarka Narodowa’, nr 10en
dc.referencesWidgrén, M. (1994), Voting Power in the EC Decision-Making and the Consequences of TwoDifferent Enlargements, ‘European Economic Review’, vol. 38en
dc.referencesWidgrén, M. (1999), Flexible integration as an efficient decision-making rule, ‘CEPR Discussion Paper’, no. 220en
dc.identifier.doi10.2478/cer-2013-0007en


Pliki tej pozycji

Thumbnail

Pozycja umieszczona jest w następujących kolekcjach

Pokaż uproszczony rekord